Hasn't the legalization of no-fault divorce and remarriage “redefined marriage” for 40 years now?

[lerapt78]

As opposed to the travesty of manufactured infidelity as the only means by which a mutually agreeable couple could have grounds for divorce - complete with faked photographic ‘evidence’ and the use of paid professionals who would pretend to be the ‘other woman’, or I suppose occasionally ‘other man’?

Infidelity was not the only valid ground for divorce 40 years ago.

In the case of infidelity though, what you refer to is indeed a travesty, as are many other unethical loopholes, ploys, and manipulations used to circumvent the law. When a law is in place, one can *always *find examples of where a person has gotten around it by manufacturing falsehoods. But what do we do in that situation - because it occurs, do we eschew the law altogether, because there’s a chance someone can weasel their way around it?

No fault divorce means exactly that - there is no fault that needs to be proved upon either party. No longer does one spouse have to demonstrate that while he/she has honored his/her word, the other has not. One can simply get out of the contract “just because”, or on the whim of fleeting emotions. And that is why it is a complete mockery of the institution - it expects nothing of people and makes the vows in essence meaningless.

 

[JimG]

No fault divorce means exactly that - there is no fault that needs to be proved upon either party. No longer does one spouse have to demonstrate that while he/she has honored his/her word, the other has not. One can simply get out of the contract “just because”, or on the whim of fleeting emotions. And that is why it is a complete mockery of the institution - it expects nothing of people and makes the vows in essence meaningless.

Yes. It puts a subtext into the vows which entirely vitiates them. In effect, “I take you to be my wife (or husband) for better, for worse, for richer, for poorer, in sickness and in health, until death–or until I decide that it’s over.”

 

[LilyM]

Infidelity was not the only valid ground for divorce 40 years ago.

In the case of infidelity though, what you refer to is indeed a travesty, as are many other unethical loopholes, ploys, and manipulations used to circumvent the law. When a law is in place, one can *always *find examples of where a person has gotten around it by manufacturing falsehoods. But what do we do in that situation - because it occurs, do we eschew the law altogether, because there’s a chance someone can weasel their way around it?

No fault divorce means exactly that - there is no fault that needs to be proved upon either party. No longer does one spouse have to demonstrate that while he/she has honored his/her word, the other has not. One can simply get out of the contract “just because”, or on the whim of fleeting emotions. And that is why it is a complete mockery of the institution - it expects nothing of people and makes the vows in essence meaningless.

You don’t seem to understand quite how regularly this particular ‘loophole’ was employed. By the way it wasn’t a loophole, it was a complete and mutually-agreed-upon fabrication of a grounds for divorce where in reality no such grounds existed and the couple really did want to divorce just because. Essentially the ‘proof’ was more often than not a total or partial lie that both parties were forced to connive at. There were women who actually made a living from getting paid regularly to pretend to be a partner in adultery for various men who were seeking divorces.

Perjury on a massive scale of this sort is NOT better than an honest admission that things simply didn’t work out.

 

[maltmom]

I guess I’ll post from the other side of this coin. I thank God I was able to file for a no-fault divorce. Both my ex-husband and I were Baptist at the time we got married and divorced. What I didn’t know is that he’s been married and divorced 5 times. Three months after we were married he told me that we were just roommates. At that point he started talking (cyber-sex) with just about every woman he met on facebook. One b/c a relationship. That’s when I told him to leave and I filed. I would have stayed in this relationship until death do us part bc I had made that vow. He, on the other hand, had no intentions from day one of that being the case. Within months of him leaving I found out about his past. I was shocked.

Were it not for a no-fault filing I don’t know what would have happened to me. He had a violent tendency which he had always controlled with me. If I had filed with the cause being infidelity a lot of things about him and his past would have come out in open court. He would have been fired from his job in law enforcement. I was threatened. He said he was going to “take care of me.” He didn’t mean it in a good way.

I filed for a decree of nullity within a month of being brought into the Church. It was granted within 2 weeks of filing. At the time my Priest was very concerned about my safety as my ex and the other woman had been driving by my house and office.

 

[lerapt78]

You don’t seem to understand quite how regularly this particular ‘loophole’ was employed. By the way it wasn’t a loophole, it was a complete and mutually-agreed-upon fabrication of a grounds for divorce where in reality no such grounds existed and the couple really did want to divorce just because. Essentially the ‘proof’ was more often than not a total or partial lie that both parties were forced to connive at. There were women who actually made a living from getting paid regularly to pretend to be a partner in adultery for various men who were seeking divorces.

I guess maybe I *don’t *understand how regularly it was used - do you? The word “regular” implies occurring with frequency. Is there a recorded statistic for this number, in proportion to the overall cases of divorce? Did a certain percentage of divorcees, after obtaining their divorces, volunteer to come forward and admit to perjury so they could be counted in polls? Was there an official survey done? Or did attorneys testify to their unethical legal advice? If so, I imagine we would have seen a large number of people imprisoned/fined for perjury, and an equally large number of lawyers being disbarred. I’d be interested in reading up on this (speaking sincerely), as the existence of fake-adulterer employment is not really common knowledge.

And if it occurred regularly, would we not see very high divorce histories among the septagenatrians of today?

I defend my use of the word “loophole” as the dictionary thefreedictionary.com/loophole defines it:
loop·hole (lphl)
n.

1. A way of escaping a difficulty, especially an omission or ambiguity in the wording of a contract or law that provides a means of evading compliance.
2. A small hole or slit in a wall, especially one through which small arms may be fired.

If the law stated that grounds for divorce included adultery, without elaborating and making it very clear that the adultery must not have been artifically concocted, (hard to imagine, as we need every little thing spelled out for us nowadays) hiring someone to pose as an adulterer would be a method of evading divorce laws by *technically *satisfying the requirements, and yet doing so by method of pretending to interpret the law in a different way that what was intended.

Perjury on a massive scale of this sort is NOT better than an honest admission that things simply didn’t work out.

Did you bold the word “not” because you inferred from my comments that I think perjury is morally superior to no-fault divorce? I don’t.

While I agree honest admissions are better than dishonest ones, I think it’s very interesting, for the purposes of this thread, that you used the word “simply”. That word actually does a good job of underscoring the capriciousness of many no-fault divorces. If people try very hard to keep their marriages strong through thick and thin, then the dissolutions should be quite complicated, not simple at all!

Anyway, I don’t know if you’re defending no-fault laws or not, but deciding whether perjury is better than no-fault divorce puts me in a position of favoring one bad over the other when neither is necessary. I choose to support neither, and criticize them both.

 

[LisaA]

You don’t seem to understand quite how regularly this particular ‘loophole’ was employed. By the way it wasn’t a loophole, it was a complete and mutually-agreed-upon fabrication of a grounds for divorce where in reality no such grounds existed and the couple really did want to divorce just because. Essentially the ‘proof’ was more often than not a total or partial lie that both parties were forced to connive at. There were women who actually made a living from getting paid regularly to pretend to be a partner in adultery for various men who were seeking divorces.

Perjury on a massive scale of this sort is NOT better than an honest admission that things simply didn’t work out.

I think you completely overstate the practice. Divorce simply was NOT nearly as common before the no fault rules…for ANY reason. Further there is a huge difference between very limited restrictions on granting divorces and requiring NO reason whatsoever. Realize that being able to get out of something easily makes entering the state a lot easier as well. The attitude “well if it doesn’t work out we can always divorce” spawned a generation who did not go into marriage with the right intent.

Just from my own perspective, I wasn’t a Christian when I married and when I got my divorce it was a non event. I filled out the forms, took them to the courthouse, gave them a check for $322 and that was it. As I worked on my annulment I saw how casually I went into marriage, how my ideas of what marriage was about, how committed I was to making things work were very much influenced by the easy divorce laws.

If you’re old as me you might remember the Mary Tyler Moore spinoff “Rhoda” where she and Joe’s wedding vows were “As long as we both shall love” That says a lot about how marriage has been viewed for the past couple of decades. Further as I watched a show on EWTN that spoke of the self giving attitude when entering marriage the marriage expert commented that many people marry someone to “make them happy” and when they aren’t “happy” they decide it’s that person’s fault. In a true sacremental marriage, that attitude does not exist. THe focus is in self giving, not in “what do I get out of this?” Further the expert said that this attitude is in effect using someone…they are supposed to make you happy…like a small child with a toy.

Again don’t make the exception the rule. Yes there are marriages that must come apart due to “The Three A’s” Adultery, Abuse, Addiction. But for many marriages, I truly believe that they are entered into too casually and without believing that sometimes love is an act of will not just a funny feeling in your tummy when he walks in the room.

Lisa

 

[lerapt78]

Again don’t make the exception the rule. Yes there are marriages that must come apart due to “The Three A’s” Adultery, Abuse, Addiction. But for many marriages, I truly believe that they are entered into too casually and without believing that sometimes love is an act of will not just a funny feeling in your tummy when he walks in the room.

Lisa

Good post, LisaA, especially this part. And I think it bears reiteration because there are people who have been in very terrible marriages who truly needed and deserved a way out. This thread is not about them. It’s about the people who dissolve their marriages once the excitement wears off and being single is more palatable than dealing through the ups and downs life throws their ways.

 

[Bartolome_Casas]

To answer the thread title question, the answer is yes.

No fault divorce wasn’t the beginning of the devolution of marriage, but it was a big step along the way. The widespread acceptance of contraception, beginning with the Lambeth Conference of 1930, and given enormous impetus by the sexual revolution of the 1960’s, separated the idea of marriage from the generating of children. That was a fatal step, and has not been reversed. Once that step was taken, the acceptance of abortion, and even same sex marriage became inevitable. [For statistical evidence of the devastating social effects of contraception and sexual license, see Mary Eberstadt’s “*Adam and Even After the Pill

.”]

Of course, separating marriage from children was radical and wrong; separating marriage from gender is even more of a flight from reality. None of this can have a good ending. It can only end in the destruction of family, and the destruction of family ends in civilizational chaos.

Yes, yes, Mr. JimG.

But what is so depressing to me is that there NO movement in the USA to rectify this. Nada.

There is a movement fighting gay marriage.

But even if it were to triumph (which increasingly seems unlikely), the so-called “marriage” that will have been saved, a “marriage” with legal use of birth control devices for contraception, and “marriage” that can be terminated on a whim by either party (no-fault divorce and remarriage), isn’t even marriage at all. The so-called “marriage” that still remains in the states that don’t yet recognize gay marriage is already a radically refined version of marriage that really isn’t even marriage.

Its like a person who has both terminal brain cancer and terminal liver cancer, and the patient and doctor agree to treat and get rid of the brain cancer only. Well, what’s the point? The patient is still going to be dead soon!

If the so-called conservatives in the USA only fight the “radical redefining of marriage” that state-recognized gay “marriage” creates, but do NOTHING to fight the “radical redefinition of marriage” that is created by the legalization of birth control pills and devices and the legalization of no-fault divorce and remarriage, what’s the point? The patient, that is, the civilization is dead anyway.

I guess this makes me depressed because it forces me to realize that there is no real conservative movement in America, just, in my opinion, various ambitious men who manipulate religious people for personal power and profit. They are all Lance Armstrongs.

Have you heard any conservative stand up on the floor of the U.S. Congress and call for a return to the traditional family law code in which both birth control devices and no-fault divorce are not legal?

That’s unthinkable, right?

That’s why I see the situation is hopeless, and see that there is no conservative movement in the USA. What get’s called the conservative movement is really just an Ayn Rand-based libertarian movement wanting to create unregulated capitalism (which the pope decried in his Jan. 1, 2013 message to the world, and the Catholic Church has always condemned).

It would give me hope if I could find even one organization that was truly fighting for Catholic principles and natural law. I’ve looked. But all I see are wily and craft politicians full of hypocrisy, duplicity and insincerity. They promote or fight only those things that bring them personal power and wealth.

And what’s the result of all this Lance Armstrong-type falseness? The result is that the Progressive are winning. They are winning. Just look at TV and the movies. Gay sex and gay relationships have reached an all-time high in terms of social acceptance.

More and more states are passing laws to allow gay marriage.

Liberals are winning and taking over America because there is no authentic conservative movement, just a big false one.

 

[gabanzo]

This is what happened to me dalrock.wordpress.com/2012/03/11/why-so-many-wives-wish-their-husbands-would-cheat/ No fault made it easy for her and it ruined me.

 

[edwest2]

My husband is a child of parents who decided to stay together “for the sake of the children.” They didn’t do him or his siblings any favors. According to DH, there was constant conflict. Fighting, screaming, arguing…even when they called a truce the tension in the air was so thick you could cut it with a knife. And who was caught in the crossfire? The kids.

My in-laws finally divorced after all the children were out of the house. I don’t know if I’d call them “happier.” They both have their battle scars, but at least they finally found peace.

While I certainly don’t regard divorce as a positive thing, and I agree that many couples give up long before it’s really necessary, I believe that couples who are truly miserable with each other should have the option to end it - not only state sanctioned marriages, but Church sanctioned marriages as well. If two 19 year olds get married while under the influence of a flood of hormones and then, upon achieving a bit more maturity discover that they made a horrible mistake, no one - not the state or the Church - should say “Tough luck - you’re stuck with each other whether you like it or not.” That’s just mindless.

You know what’s really mindless? Telling 19 year olds that you’re old enough and tell mom and dad to butt out!!

There’s no dating anymore. It’s ‘you’re hot, I’m hot, let’s do it. OK, we’re good in the sack - don’t really know anything else about each other - so let’s get married.’

Used to be that the guy and the girl would sit down with their parents who were 19 once and get the real questions asked and answered. Today is modern? It’s stupid. Totally stupid.

Peace,
Ed

 

[JimG]

Bartolome Casas,

Yes, in many ways conservatism is merely libertarianism. And libertarianism is often based on the same, “just let me do what I want” mode of thinking as is sexual libertinism. Economic libertarians tend to be political conservatives, while sexual libertarians tend to be political liberals.

But I don’t know many economic libertarians who advocate the same degree of laissez-faire “I’ll do my own thing” economics, that social libertarians advocate in the sexual and moral spheres. Even economic libertarians such as John Stossell recognize the need for some limitations on economic actions—even some regulation. It’s just that governmental actions are so often wrongheaded, misapplied and full of unanticipated consequences. Government can’t do everything well; in fact it really doesn’t do a whole lot well.

Not so long ago, adultery, sodomy, and fornication were crimes. And a wife could sue her husband’s paramour for alienation of affection. We’re not going back to that, and I don’t suggest that we do. The chief brakes on immoral social action have always tended to be social rather than legal. Families, churches, cultures, societies, disapproved of such things, consequently they were not engaged in so often or so blatantly, and if they were, shame was a factor. But those moderating institutions are the very institutions that are now being deconstructed: family, church, culture. No one any longer fears parental or social disapproval.

When family, church, and culture have been virtually destroyed all that is left is government as a control. That’s why the destruction of family leads ultimately to chaos or tyranny.

People didn’t recognize contraception and no-fault divorce and other things as an assault on marriage and family, but same sex marriage is such a blatant contradiction in terms that now, many do reconize it as a threat and take alarm.

Unfortunately, marriage and family has already been severely weakened. Same sex ‘marriage’ is just the most recent symptom of its decline.

Can society recover? Probably not. That might mean a new dark age. But the Church has lived through dark ages before, and has rebuilt civilization.

 

[MarcoPolo]

Even if every state legalized gay marriage tomorrow, the effect on the culture would be negligible to nil

This is unsubstantiated conjecture that, for one, does not take into account how official acceptance of “gay marriage” will foster the confirmation of a sinful soul in his/her sin, which would be a detrimental failure even if it cost heaven one soul.

 

[Bartolome_Casas]

Not so long ago, adultery, sodomy, and fornication were crimes. And a wife could sue her husband’s paramour for alienation of affection. We’re not going back to that, and I don’t suggest that we do. The chief brakes on immoral social action have always tended to be social rather than legal.

Then why not rely on these “chief brakes” of “social rather than legal” forces to oppose gay marriage, abortion, euthanasia, and transgressions of religious liberty?

What is wrong with going back to the criminalization of adultery, sodomy, fornication, blasphemy, birth control devices, divorce and remarriage? Are not all those “intrinsic evils”? Don’t they belong on the “Non-Negotiables” list with the other intrinsic evils? If not, why not?

 

[Bartolome_Casas]

This is unsubstantiated conjecture that, for one, does not take into account how official acceptance of “gay marriage” will foster the confirmation of a sinful soul in his/her sin, which would be a detrimental failure even if it cost heaven one soul.

I support the efforts to prevent or reverse legalization of gay marriage.

My point is just that the far greater evils are the legalization of no-fault divorce and remarriage, and the legalization of birth control divorces. These evils do a MILLION times more damage to souls and to society, just because there are so many more heterosexuals than homosexuals. Yet, there is NO movement to address the legality of these intrinsic evils. Thus, I become depressed. We are being led to fight an evil that is evil but does relatively a small amount of harm, while being led to ignore a these other two evils that do PROFOUNDLY more harm. Its like no one cares about actual souls or actual society. It’s a big sham.

 

[Sarcelle]

I really don’t believe that most people view marriage as a “self-indulgent activity.” I think when most people get married they honesty believe that they are marrying for life. Sadly, it doesn’t work out about half the time - for Catholics as well as members of other religious groups. (In fact, I recently read that the rate of divorce among atheists is less than it is among Christians in general.)

Do you really think divorce should be outlawed? Do you think that the state should force an unhappy couple to stay together, making each other miserable for the rest of their lives? Why would the state have an interest in doing such a thing?

I don’t think divorce should be outlawed but no fault divorce could be done away with, which is the point of this thread.

Divorce for abuse or adultery is quite different than divorce because the thrill is gone.

 

[LisaA]

I guess I’ll post from the other side of this coin. I thank God I was able to file for a no-fault divorce. Both my ex-husband and I were Baptist at the time we got married and divorced. What I didn’t know is that he’s been married and divorced 5 times. Three months after we were married he told me that we were just roommates. At that point he started talking (cyber-sex) with just about every woman he met on facebook. One b/c a relationship. That’s when I told him to leave and I filed. I would have stayed in this relationship until death do us part bc I had made that vow. He, on the other hand, had no intentions from day one of that being the case. Within months of him leaving I found out about his past. I was shocked.

Were it not for a no-fault filing I don’t know what would have happened to me. He had a violent tendency which he had always controlled with me. If I had filed with the cause being infidelity a lot of things about him and his past would have come out in open court. He would have been fired from his job in law enforcement. I was threatened. He said he was going to “take care of me.” He didn’t mean it in a good way.

I filed for a decree of nullity within a month of being brought into the Church. It was granted within 2 weeks of filing. At the time my Priest was very concerned about my safety as my ex and the other woman had been driving by my house and office.

But you are defending no fault divorce when it would not have been applicable in your case anyway. You had clear and specific cause for wanting to leave the marriage. While I cannot fathom not knowing that someone had been married five times and had a cybersex addiction before marrying them, obviously you were duped by a sweet talking devil. You had ALL THREE of the “As” Adultery, Addiction, and Abuse. You didn’t need a no fault divorce law to end this marriage.

NO ONE has suggested that people in a truly wretched marriage, particularly where one partner is in physical danger, should be tied together like a team of oxen. But again, your case and most cases in the past demonstrated valid reasons for divorce.

The argument is that it’s become so easy that people don’t go into the marriage with appropriate understanding and commitment or given the ‘easy out’ they divorce without even trying to determine if the marriage can or should be saved.

Lisa

 

[JimG]

Then why not rely on these “chief brakes” of “social rather than legal” forces to oppose gay marriage, abortion, euthanasia, and transgressions of religious liberty?

What is wrong with going back to the criminalization of adultery, sodomy, fornication, blasphemy, birth control devices, divorce and remarriage? Are not all those “intrinsic evils”? Don’t they belong on the “Non-Negotiables” list with the other intrinsic evils? If not, why not?

I don’t say that it would be wrong to criminalize those things. It would be impractical, and the Courts would toss out most such laws, as they have taken it upon themselves to decide that prohibiting such things is unconstitutional. Probably most of the Founders would have disagreed, but that is neither here nor there. Both political and social liberalism keep tending toward the lowest common denominator.

Abortion and euthanasia are more serious socially, since they involve the killing of other human beings. And same sex marriage is different because it is analogus to legalizing counterfeit currency. It makes legal tender of less value and ultimately worthless.

Yes, we should use social forces as a brake on immoral social actions. But as I mentioned, family, church, and culture have already been substantially destroyed. A brake with worn out linings won’t work anymore.

 

[edwest2]

As opposed to the travesty of manufactured infidelity as the only means by which a mutually agreeable couple could ahve geounds for divorce - complete with faked photographic ‘evidence’ and the use of paid professionals who would pretend to be the ‘other woman’, or I suppose occasionally ‘other man’?

Unless you have some facts to back that up, I’m not buying it. I was there in the pre-No-Fault Divorce time period. Spouses would hide money, jewelry or other valuables or have a secret bank account the other did not know about. So yes, detectives were hired to find hidden money and other assets. Judges, and attorneys, weren’t stupid. You needed more than a few “faked” photos. You needed facts, as in: “My name is detective Richard Smith.”

“And what did you observe on the night of 9 March?”

“I observed Mr. Barnes enter a hotel with a young lady at 8:00 PM.”

“Did you take photographs of Mr. Barnes and the young lady entering at the time in question?”

“I did.”

“And when did they leave?”

“It was at 11:05 PM.”

Your honor. If you examine the evidence marked 19A, you will see a photostatic copy of a page from the Hotel in question dated 9 March. It shows that Mr. Barnes and the young lady both signed in under false names, and that a handwriting expert has signed a sworn affidavit stating that these are true signatures of both.

"I see. Do you know the name of the young lady?

Yes, I do, your honor.

Peace,
Ed

 

[edwest2]

Infidelity was not the only valid ground for divorce 40 years ago.

In the case of infidelity though, what you refer to is indeed a travesty, as are many other unethical loopholes, ploys, and manipulations used to circumvent the law. When a law is in place, one can *always *find examples of where a person has gotten around it by manufacturing falsehoods. But what do we do in that situation - because it occurs, do we eschew the law altogether, because there’s a chance someone can weasel their way around it?

No fault divorce means exactly that - there is no fault that needs to be proved upon either party. No longer does one spouse have to demonstrate that while he/she has honored his/her word, the other has not. One can simply get out of the contract “just because”, or on the whim of fleeting emotions. And that is why it is a complete mockery of the institution - it expects nothing of people and makes the vows in essence meaningless.

When the priest tells the couple that marriage “is not to be entered into lightly,” he is talking to them, not mouthing meaningless words.

What was said at the time was that court dockets were overloaded with divorce cases which could drag on and on. To free up court dockets, No-Fault Divorce was given as the “best” solution. So, what do I see all over the Classifieds in the newspaper in the 1980s? “No kids? $75 and you’re out. Call 800-DIVORCE.” They knew this was going to happen. Don’t think for a minute that Harvard educated lawyers down to “ambulance chasers” didn’t see this coming. Sanctity of marriage? Who cares? I’ll make some quick, easy cash.

And this during a time period when society valued marriage more and was still a little confused about the law. In the past, the law was for the good. This was rightly referred to as not for the good. But hey, after legal abortion in 1973, another step downwards would face families in the mid-1980s. The kids were devastated. No wonder some began to distrust the institution of marriage, while those who never believed in it and hated families, were moving toward redefining gender today. 'Opposite sex, same sex. What does it matter anymore? You straights messed it up. Let the gays have a shot." Uh huh.

Peace,
Ed

 

[BettyBoop416]

I don’t think divorce should be outlawed but no fault divorce could be done away with, which is the point of this thread.

Divorce for abuse or adultery is quite different than divorce because the thrill is gone.

I think we are in agreement that divorce is not a positive thing. However, the state (which is the only entity that has the power to do away with no-fault divorce) has no interest in making two people who do not want to stay together, stay together. Even if it’s just because the thrill is gone. If you take religion out of the equation (as the state is required to do) and look at it from a purely practical perspective, there is no up-side to forcing people to stay together if they don’t want to. All that does is breed conflict.